>This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration

There is no way that pulling timber out of the forest and converting into a product actually sequesters anything. Hauling the wood out of the forest to the mill likely releases more carbon than is sequestered by the tree in its lifetime.

Your comment doesn't make sense. A tree growing in a tree farm, and being turned into lumber will sequester that carbon until that lumber is burned. I suppose it matters if you're talking about cutting down old growth for lumber, or using old farm land to put a tree farm on.

Their comment is supposing that the energy costs of hauling the tree out of the forest and slicing it into boards / mulch / whatever (given our current logging technology) emits more carbon (from fuel usage and electricity generation) than the tree sequestered during it's lifetime.

This probably not true, considering that for many decades steam powered logging equipment burned wood before coal became the dominant fuel source (and thus able to cut down and process a tree with less energy than we got from a single tree), although many mills were powered by flowing water.

It's the same notion that "PV panels emit an equivalent of 50g of CO2 per kW/h (assuming a 25 year service life)". Even though the panel doesn't emit anything during operation, mining and manufacturing are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

The tree itself sequesters carbon, but the carbon output from using the tree is what is produced burning it + getting it ready to burn.

Have you watched the trucks hauling logged trees down the road? They aren't exactly fuel efficient, then you haul that finished product from the mill to the lumber yard, then to the job site. The average tree sequesters 400kg of carbon in 25 years. The average commuter car will produce that in 2 weeks.

As the economy electrifies and the grid decarbonizes this will improves. Electric trucks, electric chainsaws etc. Mills are already electric I assume.